►
From YouTube: Privacy Work Group Virtual Meeting: Business Meeting
Description
NCSL Privacy Work Group Business Meeting held Friday, Sept. 25, 2020.
A
Presentations
but
it
was
great
to
learn
what
other
states
have
been
doing
where
there
have
been
leaders
in
other
places
and
what
we
still
have
yet
to
do.
They
did
a
great
job
of
laying
out
the
issues
that
were
left
open
that
still
have
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done.
So
I
really
applaud
the
ncsl
staff
for
recruiting
those
presenters.
C
B
C
B
B
The
growth
of
internet,
mobile
and
social
network
connectivity
has
greatly
increased
the
amount
of
personally
identifiable
information
that
consumers
generate
and
share
with
companies
and
with
the
government
with
new
laws
and
the
passage
of
gdpr
businesses
and
governments
are
required
to
adjust
to
a
more
complex
regulatory
scheme.
I'll
say
for
starters
that
I
would
love
for
kentucky
to
adopt
what
assemblywoman
irwin
has
done
there
in
california.
If
we
could
manage
to
get
it
passed
just
as
a
place
to
start.
B
What
are
your
all's
thoughts
on
that
I'll?
Tell
you,
as
I
mentioned
I'll,
volunteer,
that
I'd
love
for
kentucky
to
adopt
something
we're
behind.
We
we've
got
nothing
in
kentucky
on
consumer
data
protection,
there's
a
weak
sauce
sort
of
milk,
toast
data
breach
notification,
but
that's
as
that's
as
friendly
to
consumers,
as
kentucky
law
has
ever
gotten
and
it's
still
pretty
weak.
B
B
F
F
B
Thank
you.
Anybody
else
is
there
anything
that
we
haven't
included
on
this
list.
You
think
we
ought
to
so
I
think
the
rep
is
pretty
on
the
nose
there.
This
is
this
is
a
lot
to
tackle
and
there's
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
policy
work
to
dig
into
in
all
of
any
one
or
two
of
these,
not
to
mention
the
whole.
B
C
B
B
C
B
Email
any
of
the
folks
with
the
ncsl
team
or
email
assemblyman,
woman,
irwin
or
senator
alexander.
The
co-chairs
feel
free
to
share
any
other
suggestions
or
comments
offline.
That
way
that
you
wish
to
any
other
thoughts
or
suggestions
from
the
group
representative,
hudgins,
I
see
in
the
chat,
has
a
comment
fire
away
representative.
D
So
large
discussion
there
about
enforcement
second
piece
was
around
facial
recognition,
software
and
the
privacy
implications
about
that
and
how
that
intersects
with
artificial
intelligence
and
notification
and
bias.
So
that
was
a
second
piece
of
that
privacy
discussion
that
was
really
really
large
in
our
state
and
we've
seen
some
of
the
providers,
especially
during
the
the
racial
reckoning,
we're
having
in
our
country,
focus
on
not
selling,
for
example,
to
law
enforcement
right
now
and
making
sure
there's
some
outside
studies.
D
D
B
Yeah
and
abby
put
in
the
chat
just
now
to
remind
everybody
everyone
to
check
out
the
recording
of
the
facial
recognition
and
biometrics
webinar
from
yesterday
online
on
ncl
sales
site
be
sure
to
check
that
out.
I
think
that
very
well
taken
that
suggestion.
We've
got
I
the
things
that
cross
my
mind
and-
and
I
don't
know
that-
needs
to
be
listed,
but
each
one
of
these
has
some
element
element
in
my
mind
about
consumers
access
to
it.
B
H
B
G
Of
course,
I'll
call
you
senator
so
this
is
senator
liu
de
palma
from
rhode
island.
I'm
just
I
was
I
would
have
commented
earlier,
but
I
went
and
checked
online
on
my
other
computer
here
and
obviously
we
had
an
abbreviated
session
this
year
and
maybe
most
of
you
had
a
movie,
you
have
I'm
not
certain
everybody
had
as
abbreviated
as
we
did,
but
our
house
rep
shanley
in
our
house.
He
had
a
commission
that
finished
last
year.
G
I
don't
think
he
had
a
bill
last
year,
but
the
rhode
island
data
transmit
transparency
and
privacy
protection
act.
I
think
it's
probably
patterned
after
what
california
had
done.
I
think
representative,
who
would
be
a
part
of
us
here,
still
wrecked,
but
he's
not
running
next
year.
He
chose
to
retire
he's
very
young
to
retire,
but
that
bill
exists.
In
fact,
I'm
trying
to
text
him
now.
I
don't
believe
we
had
a
senate
companion
and
on
our
senate
side
we
had
a
different
bill.
G
B
G
What
can
I
tell
you
yeah?
So
unless
there's
a
big
writing
campaign
I'll
be
connecting
with
the
representative
shanley
from
our
house,
who,
I
think
is
coming
back,
I'm
not
certain
if
he
has
a
challenger
and
on
the
house
side
I
expect
he
wins,
we'll
look
like
we'll
be
introducing
something
in
rhode,
island
next
year
as
well.
B
G
C
B
B
B
They
obviously
we
all
know
this.
They
provide
all
of
us
legislators
with
opportunities
to
advocate
for
state
leadership,
on
privacy
to
congress
and
the
administration,
and
we
encourage
you
all
of
us
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
abby
susan
or
the
rest
of
the
team,
if
you're
interested
in
getting
more
involved
with
ncsl's
federal
advocacy
on
privacy
and
cyber
security
issues
as
soon
as
mitch,
mcconnell
is
done
running
for
reelection
I'll,
be
sure
to
reach
out
to
him
here
in
the
bluegrass.
I
don't
know.
B
It's
important
that
any
product
of
this
group
puts
out
or
any
of
the
work
product
that
is
put
out
is
a
reflection
of
all
of
us
and
our
input
from
our
various
roles
across
the
united
states,
with
congress
continually
failing
to
move
any
sort
of
federal
privacy
proposal.
We're
on
the
front
lines
here
in
the
states.
B
The
laboratories
of
democracy
ncsl
has
long
served
as
a
forum
for
us
legislators
to
work
across
state
lines
and
to
develop
guidelines
and
guides
for
difficult
policy
issues,
and
we've
got
an
opportunity
to
do
the
same
thing
here
on
privacy
and
it's
a
whammy,
a
big
as
more
states
consider
both
comprehensive
and
limited
more
narrow
privacy
proposals.
There's
a
need
for
guidance
to
lawmakers
on
the
complex
and
legally
challenging
issues
involved
in
regulating
privacy.
B
We've
got
a
lot
of
options
for
what
you
all
think
would
be
most
helpful
for
you
and
all
the
rest
of
us
fellow
lawmakers,
including
best
practices.
Statements
of
principle,
discussion,
guides,
surveys,
white
papers,
region,
specific
guidance.
We
plan
to
start
working
on
the
first
product
soon
and
we'll
have
initial
drafts
for
discussion
at
our
december
meeting.
G
G
Correct
and
the
lobbyist,
I
know
there's
somebody
somebody's
here
from
ctia
or
whatever,
and
I
value
what
they
come
to
the
table.
We
have
representatives
in
rhode,
island
and
we
have
conversations
about.
What's
there
what's
not
there
and
whether
it's
the
telecoms
that
come
to
the
table,
verizon
ap
t
you
name
it
and
they
say.
Oh,
we
really
can't
do
that
like
well.
I
know
you
can.
G
I
know
you
don't
want
to,
but
we
need
your
help
to
push
this
at
the
national
level,
because
I
gotta
follow
rules
in
50
different
states
for
for
people
that
might
be
in
rhode
islanders
that
might
be
living
in
wisconsin.
That's
still
relying
on
data.
You
got
to
follow
the
rhode
island
law
with
rhode,
island
data,
so.
B
I
Yeah,
I
I
couldn't
agree
more
with
you
senator
de
palma.
I
really,
I
think
congress
needs
to
act
here,
it's
something
that
we
are
advocating
for
at
the
federal
level
and
we
spend
a
whole
host
of
time
with
other
industries
doing
so.
We
are
very
worried
about
a
patchwork
of
privacy
laws
in
this
space,
so
know
that
we
are
advocating
for
that.
We're
spending
a
lot
of
time
and
resources
doing
so
and
believe
that
we
need
a
federal
solution
for
once
and
for
all.
G
One
last
piece
on
that
and
if
we
think
about
the
you
know
the
data,
the
notification
for
data
breach
right
every
state's
different,
I
don't
think
any
states
are
the
same.
Yeah,
maybe
30
days,
15
days,
10
days,
who
you
tell
who
you
don't
tell?
Who
needs
to
be
told
first,
second,
third
and
exceptions
for
when
you
don't
have
to
tell
exactly
and
if
rhode
islander,
if
it's
rhode,
island
data
and
the
rhode
islander
is
in
wisconsin,
which
law
do
you
follow
yeah?
I
Great,
thank
you
and-
and
you
raise
the
exact
issue
here-
the
data
breach
notification
framework
in
this
country
is
broken.
Congress
should
have
stepped
in
a
decade
ago
after
well.
Over
a
decade
ago
I
mean
once
california,
enacted
its
data
breach
notification
law
in
2001
congress
should
have
acted,
and
we
do
not
want
the
privacy
framework
in
this
country
to
reflect
the
data
breach
notification
framework
in
the
united
states.
C
D
Good
for
you,
you
know,
following
up
on
senator
palmer's
point
and
jerry's,
you
know
I
think,
we're
all
aligned
that
what
we
don't
want
is
50
different
rules.
You
know,
if
we
look
at
you
know,
there's
obviously
the
federal
peace,
but
you
know
if
we
look
at
what
streamline,
how
you
know
the
streamlined
sales
tax
project,
ncso's
role
in
that
you
know
over
the
last
15
years,
while
I'm
not
sure
we
could
replicate
that
model
here.
D
I
guess
our
interest
is
that
there's
some
work
product
that
you
know
we
understand
ncsl
can't
put
information
on
sort
of
a
model
bill,
but
if
there
is
some
type
of
you
know,
consistency
and
spirit
that
this
group
can
put
out
as
a
work
product
so
that
you
know
states
have
some
sort
of
you
know
posts
that
we
could
then
add.
You
know
advocate
from
to
minimize.
You
know
the
the
overlapping
and
the
you
know
the
dueling
statutes.
D
B
I
I
really
appreciate
kevin
and
mr
keegan
I
appreciate
you,
both
speaking
up
and
the
senator,
raising
the
point
we
we
hopefully
learned
through
that
repetition,
senator
so
keep
bringing
us
keep
banging
that
drama,
and
I
hope
that
you
all
those
that
are
working
with
congress
and
the
ncsl
staff.
Let
us
know
I
and
I
reached
out
to
having
last
night,
I
shot
you
an
email
and
said
what
what
can
I
do?
How
can
I
plug
in
and
get
more
involved
in,
advocating
with
congress
to
to
do
something?
B
B
So
it's
it's
in
the
meantime,
though,
I
still
think
we
don't
have
much
of
a
choice
but
to
try
to
do
something
on
a
state
level
as
frustrating
as
it
is
and
as
as
challenging
as
it
makes
the
environment,
because
I
and
I'm
going
to
speak
for
me.
I
worry
about
the
consumers,
who
are
just
giving
out
all
this
data
and
really
sacrificing
themselves
to
that
that
marketplace
without
sufficient
protections
without
awareness
and
without
some
requirements
to
make
sure
people
know
what
is
being
shared
and
what
control
over
it
they
have
or
don't.
E
E
Sure
senator
westerfield,
this
is
rick
zimmerman
from
ncta.
I
wanted
to
jump
in
less
less
about
work
product
than
just
sort
of
following
up
on
the
the
prior
conversation
and
offer
a
slightly
contrarian
view,
at
least
to
your
last
point,
maybe
not
to
what
was
said
before,
because
we
certainly
wholeheartedly
believe
in
a
national
privacy
framework
and
have
worked
closely
with
our
friends
at
ctia
and
walmart.
And
you
know
I
think,
everyone
that
is
represented
here
to
try
to
make
that
happen.
E
So
I
want
to
say
something
about
that,
but
then
come
back
to
the
question
of
kind
of
a
de
facto
national
standard.
So
representative
hudgins
mentioned
you
know,
enforcement
and,
as
you
did,
the
question
of
private
right
of
action
and
frankly,
that
is
one
of
the
key
issues
and
elements
that
is
holding
back
federal
action.
E
There's
probably
two
there's
more,
but
I
think
the
two
main
ones
are
the
question
of
preemption
and
the
question
of
enforcement,
and
maybe
you
know
taking
up
representative
hudgins
on
his
suggestion
or
offer
that
you
know
we
explore
enforcement
as
part
of
the
you
know
the
work
of
the
task
force
and
you
know,
look
at
different
models
and
regimes
and
whatever-
and
you
know
see
if
that
log
jam
can
be
broken.
But
you
know
I
I
don't.
E
I
don't
work
on
the
hill
per
se,
but
I'm
in
the
same
department
with
all
the
people
that
work
on
the
hill
at
my
organization
and
have
way
too
many
meetings
about
this
pretty
much
everything,
but
yes,
enforcement,
private
right
of
action.
That
is
a
huge
issue.
But
having
said
that,
the
the
contrarian
part
here
is-
and
I
know
this
will
be
deeply
status-
unsatisfying
to
all
state
legislators-
is
that
our
suggestion
would
be
not
to
legislate.
For
this
reason,
california,
now
ccpa
is
the
de
facto
national
standard.
B
B
We
you
can't
the
the
the
people
that
make
apps
and
services
don't
operate
just
in
kentucky
or
just
in
rhode,
island
or
wherever
they
you
do
business
in
california,
you're,
probably
going
to
do
business
in
the
commonwealth
and
elsewhere.
So
I
understand
that
argument.
I
disagree
with
it,
but
I
understand.
G
G
I'm
always
going
to
be
respectfully
direct,
I'm
not
going
to
tell
you
a
and
go
do
b
at
the
end
of
the
day.
I
could.
I
have
a
constituent,
a
set
of
constituents
that
are
looking
for
something
we're
going
to
do
something
and
guess
what
our
data
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
different.
It
doesn't
need
to
be,
but
if
congress
does
something
you're
going
to
end
up
with
50
different
versions,
not
50,
but.
A
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
something
that
would
be
really
useful
for
other
state
legislators
who
are
looking
at
this
topic
and
trying
to
craft.
Something
is
potentially
a
comparative
glossary
of
terms.
One
of
the
hardest
things
that
has
come
about
in
discussions
of
our
statute
in
california
is
what
do
the
defined
terms
mean?
What
are
their
scope?
What
are
we
missing?
What
might
be
over
inclusive
in
them?
A
Many
of
the
bills
that
assemblyman
irwin
has
carried
have
been
purely
modifying
the
definitional
section
of
the
ccpa
so
being
able
to
have
a
glossary
that
can
compare
what
is
an
existing
law
in
many
other
states.
So
many
states
like
to
borrow
from
existing
statute
on
their
definitions
of
let's
say
what
does
aggregate
mean?
A
What
does
deidentified
mean
and
see
what
kind
of
gap
there
is
between
that
and
other
states
if
we
are
trying
to
make
a
more
uniform
approach
across
the
50
states,
in
absence
of
congressional
action
and
just
rick's
point
about
potentially
living
with
california
law,
I
do
want
to
note
for
everybody.
We
do
have
a
ballot
initiative
on
our
november
ballot
that
significantly
changes.
A
A
A
A
Yeah
and-
and
one
last
point
just
for
for
you
to
keep
an
eye
on
and
why
I
think
this
comparative
glossary
might
be
a
helpful
tool
in
the
next
few
years.
Is
that
if
that
ballot
initiative
does
pass,
it
has
very
strong
language
about
amendment
tying.
The
hands
of
the
state
legislature
to
essentially
only
by
a
super
majority,
amend
the
initiative
to
be
more
pro-privacy.
A
B
J
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
jump
in,
I
guess.
First
on
first
we
were
able
to
go
and
create
a
privacy
protection
council
and
have
a
lot
of
discussion
amongst
our
members
and
stakeholders,
which
included
industry
and
private
sector
about
privacy
and
privacy
issues
and
looking
what
other
states
are
doing.
I
guess
what
I
would
start
with
is
saying
that
you
know
we
have
no
belief
whatsoever
that
the
federal
government
is
going
to
agree
on
on
anything
for
a
very
long
time
right.
So
so
I
think
that's
not
really.
J
If
we
really
want
to
address
the
privacy
issues
that
consumers
are
facing,
it's
not
going
to
happen,
I
mean
the
reality
is:
is
there
are
50
different
types
of
breach,
notifications
and
for
a
reason
right
that
there's
there's
issues
that
come
up?
This
is
one
of
the
more
complicated
issues
that
I
don't
think
congress
will
get
to,
and
I
don't
necessarily
have
a
problem.
Well,
ideally,
I
think
we
would
all
be
able
to
agree
you
know
like,
but,
for
instance,
I
hear
california
saying
well
we'll
be
fine
with
it.
J
So
long
as
you
know,
your
definitions
match
our
definitions
and
your
ideas
match
our
ideas.
What
I
think
we
all
get
to
keep
in
mind
is
what
can
we
get
accomplished
in
the
next
year
or
the
next
two
years
to
go
and
actually
provide
these
benefits?
What
I've
seen
over
just
just
actually
the
last
few
months
is
there
have
been
a
lot
of
lawsuits.
J
There's
been
a
lot
of
activity
more
related
to
antitrust
issues
right
rather
large
companies
are
now
monopolizing
the
data
right,
because
what
we
could
keep
in
mind
is
it's
not
just
hey,
we
don't
want
people
to
have
your
data
what's
happened
and
I
would
say,
california's
legislation
actually
helped
do
that
to
some
bit
is
it's.
It's
essentially
created
one
or
two
or
three
large
companies
in
particular,
that
have
have
control
of
this
information
for
advertising,
marketing
and
other
purposes.
J
So
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
here
is
not
only
is
our
attorney
general
been
part
of
that
anti-trust
suit,
but
there
have
been
lawsuits
all
over
the
country.
I
know
in
arizona
and
other
places
when,
when
companies
haven't,
for
instance,
even
they
violated
their
own
terms
of
agreement,
so
there's
I
think,
a
lot
of
low-hanging
fruit.
You
know
certain
types
of
malfeasance
or
or
industries
that
are
acting
out
of
step
with
common
norms
or
even
what
their
industry
coalition
said
that
we
can
tackle.
J
We
can
look
at
these
lawsuits
and
say
you
know
what,
if
you
say
that
your
your
privacy
is
set
to
high,
that
is
actually
done
right.
There's
current
federal
laws,
for
instance
on
children.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
those
things
are
not
being
violated,
so
some
of
that
could
be
comported
related
to
to
just
again
low-hanging
fruit
that
we
would
all
agree
on
as
opposed
to
maybe
what
the
actual
definition
of
data
or
data
deletion
is.
F
I'd
vote
for
definitions,
or
at
least
some
common
understanding
of
what
those
topics
and
sub
issues
are
going
to
be,
and
it's
interesting
that
we
have
large
companies
that
are
already
bound
by
california
laws.
These
are
the
companies
that
also
have
to
play
by
gdpr
rules
that
don't
they
they
have
no
willingness
to
accept
in
other
states
what
they're
already
bound
to
in
california.
B
B
B
B
D
G
It's
another
suggestion
would
be,
and
it's
more
of
a
for
an
information
perspective.
What's
the
hesitation
cause,
I
still
believe
a
national
approach
is
the
right
answer.
What's
the
hesitation
either
on
the
house
or
the
senate,
and
from
a
fax
and
data
perspective,
and
also
who
are
the
ones
that
are
standing
in?
Who
are
the
opposition?
Who
are
the
opposite
ones?
Who
are
the
ones
that
are
standing
in
the
way
that
need
to
have
a
conversation
with
to
understand
how
to
appreciate
to
get
over
the
goal
line
or
do
something
different.
H
H
Now
engaging
in
the
house
and
senate
they've
put
out
their
proposals
over
the
last
two
years
and
really
the
big
opposition
from
the
senate
and
the
house
and
the
various
caucuses
have
been
at
the
high
level
twofold
one:
a
state
preemption
issue,
primarily
because
california
has
such
a
strong
congressional
delegation.
That's
been
a
real
wall
for
getting
consensus
on
what
a
bill
would
look
like
most
of
the
republican
bills.
H
One
was
just
put
out
a
week
and
a
half
ago
the
safe
data
act
from
the
senate
side
are
very
strongly
preemptive
bills.
There's
also
the
argument
there
that
some
folks
think
that
they're
not
going
as
they're,
not
as
protective
of
california,
so
they
they're
worried
that
they
are
both
preempting
states
and
not
providing
sufficient
protection
for
consumers,
and
that's
just
one
perspective,
there's
also
a
lot
of
conflict
on
the
enforcement
side.
H
The
private
right
of
action
versus
other
methods
of
enforcement,
including
ftc
jurisdiction,
so
you
know,
senator
wicker
from
the
senate
side
is
really
heading
up
all
of
the
senate
republican
proposals
out
of
the
senate
commerce
committee,
I'd
invite
you
to
watch
wednesday's
hearing
on
the
need
for
future
federal
data
privacy
legislation,
as
well
as
some
of
the
hearings.
They've
had
this
summer
on
the
house
side
and
we've
worked
really
closely
with
the
energy
and
commerce
committee.
H
They
are
a
lot
more
in
line
with
our
perspective
in
terms
of
working
more
closely
with
states,
but
you
know
they
also
don't
necessarily
have
as
much
leverage,
because
they
can't
get
any
of
the
senators
on
board.
So
it's
really
been
just
a
stalemate.
Honestly,
and
we,
like,
I
said,
like
the
senator
said,
we
encourage
you
to
work
with
us
to
sort
of
find
ways
that
we
can.
H
You
know,
get
all
of
our
our
federal
partners
on
board.
You
know
this
is
one
of
those
issues
that
ncsl
normally
is
is
anti-state
preemption
on
on
most
things,
but
this
is
issues
that
there's
sort
of
a
general
consensus
that
it
may
be
necessary
for
a
federal
proposal.
But
what
we
don't
want
is
blanket
state
preemption
with
protections
that
states
don't
think
are
sufficient.
So
that's
that's
the
goal.
H
H
Well,
that's
the
other
thing
is
you
know,
things
are
going
to
change
very
very
quickly
here,
and
I
would
also
I
mentioned
this
to
senator
westerfield
but
another
option
for
this
group
and
obviously
it's
all
it's
up
to
you
all.
We
also
can
work
on
recommendations
to
congress
if,
if
a
national
standard
is
something
that
something
that
we
support,
then
working
on
recommendations
to
how
that
can
be
done
well
is
is
an
option
too.
B
H
No,
what
we'll
do
is
we're
gonna
put
together
a
summary
of
everything.
We've
talked
about
and
now
that
we
kind
of
have
a
direction
on
where
we
want
to
go
in
terms
of
work
products
we're
going
to
start
reaching
out
to
you
all.
I
know
you've
got
elections,
but
just
keep
an
eye
out
for
our
emails.
We're
going
to
try.
C
H
C
C
Just
one
okay,
so
I
just
want
to
add
one
extra
thing.
You
know
one
of
the
most
impactful
things
that
we
as
an
organization
can
do
representing
all
of
you
is
to
be
able
to
go
to
key
people
on
the
hill
to
say
you
know
this
is
a.
This
is
a
culmination
of
where
the
states
stand
on
these
issues
and
what
the
states
feel
would
be
appropriate,
and
I
think
it's
really
hard
for
federal
folks
to
come
back
and
say.
Well,
that's
not!
B
Ask
that
all
right!
Thank
you,
susan,
thank
you,
abby
and
thank
you
all
members
for
the
discussion.
I
wanna.
I'm
gonna,
wrap
us
up
here
and
talk
about
some
next
steps
for
the
work
group
here
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
we're
winding
down
so
hang
in
there
for
another
two
or
three
minutes.
The
next
meeting
of
the
work
group
is
presently
going
to
be
in
december,
which
will
include
programming
all
right.
B
We
also
intend
intend
to
hold
a
full
in-person
meeting
as
soon
as
that's
possible
when
that's
possible,
including
potentially
holding
a
pre-conference
meeting
at
the
summit
next
summer
and
hosting
a
larger
in-person
meeting
next
fall.
As
the
situation
permits,
I
invite
I
know.
Assemblywoman
irwin
invites
your
suggestions
on
meeting
timing
and
future
programming.
B
J
B
Okay.
That
concludes
our
first
business
meeting.
I
appreciate
everybody's
attendance.
I
appreciate
your
engagement.
I
look
forward
to
when
we
can
all
meet
again.
Don't
we
all
man,
let's
zoom,
would
be
fantastic
now
if
you've
got
questions
reach
out
to
ncsl
cyber
task
force
staff,
pam
abby
susan,
whose
emails
are
in
the
chat
and
are
certainly
in
your
inbox
many
times
from
other
correspondents,
so
feel
free
to
grab
those
they
should
be
in
your
favorites
list.
Everybody
thank.
G
H
That
was
wonderful.
You
did
a
great
job,
we
might
just
have
you
do
all
the
meetings
from
now
on
bring
it
along
appreciate
it.
Well,
good
luck
with
your
race.
We
hope
to
see
you
back
soon
and
we
appreciate
your
help
and
I'm
going
to
get
you
information
about
what
we're
doing
on
the
federal
side,
and
there
were
a
couple.